Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for failing to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250. The court held that Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause to compel defendant, a convicted sex offender who traveled interstate, to register under SORNA. The court also held that under the modified categorical approach, defendant's plea to the state charge of sexual abuse rendered him a Tier III sex offender. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Cabrera-Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Because the reading of an I-214 Form was "normally attendant to arrest and custody," and the Border Patrol agent made not effort to question defendant or secure a waiver of her rights, the court held that his actions were not the functional equivalent of express questioning such that they were an "interrogation" in violation of Miranda v. Arizona. Further, based on the circumstances, defendant was not subjected to the functional equivalent of interrogation. Because defendant was not subjected to interrogation or its functional equivalent, the court affirmed the district court's motion to suppress her post-arrest statements. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Gantt and Smith were tried and convicted of murder. After the key witness recanted his testimony, all charges were dismissed. The instant appeal concerned the unsuccessful lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. 1983 filed by plaintiffs following their release. The case proceeded to trial and resulted in a verdict for defendants on all claims. Plaintiffs subsequently challenged certain jury instructions and evidentiary rulings. The court concluded that the district court erred in instructing the jury about the level of culpability required for a deliberate fabrication of evidence claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The error was not harmless and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the fabrication of evidence. At any retrial on this matter, the district court should consider whether a Brady instruction was warranted and explain its ruling. Further, the correct conspiracy instruction must be given under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiffs' remaining assignments of error either lacked merit or the claims were not supported by sufficient evidence in the record. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial limited to the specific claims outlined. View "Gantt v. City of Los Angeles, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the Secretary's denial of their claims for Medicare coverage for dental services. Plaintiffs contended that this denial was premised on the Secretary's unreasonable interpretation of the Medicare Act, Pub. L. No. 89-97, 79 Stat. 286, which contravened the intent of Congress and violated plaintiffs' right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. The court concluded that, although the statutory provision for exclusion of dental services was ambiguous in the sense that plausible divergent constructions could be urged, the Secretary's interpretation of the statute was reasonable. The court also concluded that the Secretary's statutory interpretation warranted Chevron deference and the Secretary's statutory interpretation was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fournier v. Sebelius" on Justia Law